Is the vast majority of tenured academia really dead wood in America? Isn't
this the same kind of thing being said about schoolteachers in the education
reform debate in this country - that K-12 schools are full of bad teachers
who can't be fired because of unions, etc., etc.? How real are either of these
estimates which wield considerable rhetorical power?
As a recently tenured faculty member, seeing my workload and responsibilities
go up significantly since getting tenure, I'm genuinely puzzled by the dead
wood phenomenon. We hear about tenure leading to stagnation all the time, but
if the problem was so widespread, wouldn't US universities be far less
successful than they have been? Sure, the problem of dead wood is real, and
I'm guessing most of us can think of someone who fits that category. But how
many of the tenured professors you know would you classify as dead wood? What
percentage? Is it high enough to constitute a vast majority?
That said, I like the idea of an academic's bill of rights and
responsibilities... although the original bill left out the responsibilities
part! I can see most academics endorsing the idea - but surely the code has to
apply to administrators who run universities too, no?
Madhu
~
Madhusudan Katti
Associate Professor of Vertebrate Biology
Department of Biology, M/S SB73
California State University, Fresno
Fresno, CA 93740-8034
Email: mka...@csufresno.edu
Tel: 559.278.2460
Fax: 559.278.3963
Lab: http://www.reconciliationecology.org/
~
On Monday, May 23, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Aaron T. Dossey wrote:
Rather than a knee-jerk defense of tenure as a holy system/right, why
not accept that there IS a problem and consider alternatives?
I have recently proposed replacing it with an academic's bill of rights
and responsibilities - a code for faculty including a list of reasons
one CAN'T be fired (like teaching controversial topics, being overtly
politically active, doing controversial research, etc.) and
responsibilities including a list of reasons they CAN be fired (poor
treatment of their employees/studentechs/postechs/staff, lack of
productivity, lack of general work ethic and not taking care of their
job responsibilities).
It is a fact that tenure doesn't serve it's purpose - I know of no more
silent, pacified tight-lipped go along to get along group of
professionals I have experienced than tenured professors - so much for
tenure creating academic freedom. All it does is keep dead wood afloat
- protect tenured profs in cushy positions from having to mentor their
students, from having to work hard and try to make as many discoveries
and innovate as much as possible (even seek applications, marketable
ones?, for the fruits of their research God duth forbid) - WHILE
starving many OTHERS who DO have the passion, drive, talent and interest
in aggressively doing all of the bullet points of a prof's job
description, doing them well and doing a lot of them - from having
careers at ALL.
It's a common problem in America: too much investment in too few, while
the vast majority languish, or are forced to serve those few. NOT a
recipe for innovation or a healthy system for science!
Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
On 5/23/2011 10:36 AM, Ganter, Philip wrote:
Aaron,
I have read your recommendations for improving science funding. I
think you are taking a band aid approach to the problem. Peter
Lawrence has suggested a much more fundamental change which would, if
adopted, correct many of the faults addressed in your document and
might be a viable alternative to the current system. See:
Lawrence PA (2009) Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of
Scientific Research. PLoS Biol 7(9):
e1000197. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000197
The heart of research is sick: a conversation with Peter Lawrence.
2011. Lab Science No.2 pp. 24-31
I also think your dismissal of tenure is a fundamental threat to the
university system. I have watched as administrative incompetence has
damaged the careers of more than one young scientist. Tenure is the
only bulwark protecting academic freedom and shared governance (both
as defined by the AAUP) and it is vital for maintaining quality in
higher education. These institutional values are, in many instances,
the only means of making administrations accountable. Of course, with
academic freedom and shared governance comes the responsibility to
participate in governance. Although I have no data to back this up,
I believe that I have noticed a tendency for scientists to feel that
their only duty to their institutions is to get grants, do research,
and mentor students. Committee assignments are denigrated as a waste
of time. Tenure, for these scientists, is considered unnecessary as
the ability to bring in grant money is the
